Dancing Baby Revelation : Consideration On Notice And Take Down Procedure Under Chinese Copyright Law

Piracy has become a major issue in the United States. For every motion picture that has been featured in theaters also has been pirated onto the Internet the next day, and for every new musical album that is released, yet there is a free torrent file of the album within the same hour. Even though these online pirates steal music and movies from other companies and make a drastic profit, yet these “rogue” websites receive 53 billions visits a year from across the globe according to Creative America. The persistence of the thieves that break copyright laws of the productions has lead the entertainment business to place a definitive complaint to the U.S. government of the constant notion of piracy. While the notion of piracy was not left

There are claims made suggesting that copyright is a direct violation of our freedom of speech. Within the general foundation of protection and enjoyment of those protections, rest limitations, because of the real connection between authorization and copyright law. The goal of research is to investigate and unearth specific facts about the history of intellectual property in relation to old and contemporary court cases. The M. Whitmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Decree states that copyright is an indivisible and cannot be split up and partially assigned, as to time, place, rights and privileges (298 F. 470, 1924). Does this case contradict the Digital Millennium Act? Are the copyright rules in violation of any rights concerning our right to free speech? If so, how are those rights violated? The Statute of Anne in eighteenth century Europe, was set up to prevent the unauthorized composition of works that had

Piracy is already illegal in the US, and most places around the world, yet it persists underground, but more often in plain sight. Short of passing a law that allows the actual blacklisting of websites like China and Iran, there is no legislative solution. That’s what SOPA and PIPA were attempting to do, but it so obviously trampled on the First Amendment, it was laughed out of existence as the entire internet protested it. The only other thing you could get the internet to agree on was if they tried to institute a ban on cat pictures.(Tassi)

The Copyright Regulations 1969 set out take down notice procedures that a copyright owner or agent can follow in relation to infringing copyright material existing on a carriage service provider’s system or network (Norvell, 2009). Once, a copyright owner or their agent believes, on a reasonable grounds that the material is infringing, and they wish the internet service provider to remove or disable access to the

The Supreme Court has tried to explain that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution was intended to establish independent, entrepreneurial, self-sustaining authorship and publishing as the means of serving the public interest in securing the production of valuable literary and scientific works. To that one must ask what are the consequences of remix? When I think about it remixing has left a positive and inferior aspect of life for many people. When people are able to steal or copy the work of an individual without any consequence they are sending a clear message saying that they are free of the law. Therefore, I propose that the copyright office of the state of Washington should change the copyright policy of remixing so that it may benefit more people than just the original artist.

Censorship in China has gained much attention recently because of the conflict between Google and the Chinese government’s self-censorship policies. In fact, censorship has been practiced since ancient China and the intensity only increases by the years. Nowadays, the most notable measure of censorship is being done on the Internet. More and more restrictions have been put into actions by the Chinese government, which make the life of Chinese Internet users, the Chinese netizens, very inconvenient. With the intensity of censorship increasing and the censoring technology improving, Internet censorship has mainly negative effects on Chinese society.

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

Copyright in a work can be infringed by copying it, issuing copies of it to the public or making an adaptation of it . It is apparent that hyperlinks are not a material form of a copy, but merely an electronic link to another site. Authorisation would only be required for clickable links, if it is substantiated that such links would infringe a copyright held by the original content provider. For our current purposes, clickable links shall be examined in line with the right of communication to the public.

From his very first album at 18 years old to his denial of digital music markets towards the end of his life, a prominent theme throughout Prince’s musical career was his insistence on power over his music. He famously believed that artists should not have managers: “You should be a grown man, be able to man-age yourself”.(Hiatt) His public war with record label Warner Bros. was the pinnacle of his battle for control. “When you stop a man from dreaming, he becomes a slave. That’s where I was. I don’t own Prince’s music. If you don’t own your masters, your master owns

YouTube gave a "sheltered harbor" for copyright encroachment under the present written work of the DMCA, which was instituted in 1998 preceding the approach of the video spilling administration, Announcement reports. Along these lines, requesting of against the DMCA is the proper thing to do to prevent organizations from profiting of the craftsman. Since innovation have propelled, the law is not shielding craftsmen from organizations producing salary from their

In February 7, 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a twenty-nine-second clip of her young son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy". The audio was poor quality, and the song was audible for only part of the twenty-nine second video. In June 2007, Universal, the copyright holder for "Let's Go Crazy", sent YouTube a takedown notice claiming the video was a copyright violation. YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz of the removal and the suspected infringement. In June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and went looking for a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), “the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.” In September 2007, Prince released statements that he wanted to reclaim his work on the internet. In October 2007, Universal released a statement that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user generated content.

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

In 1977 a 19 year old man Minneapolis,Minnesota named Prince Rogers Nelson was trying to convince his record label who has only signed him a few weeks ago to let him be the only producer on his first studio album. The studio executives gave him a test and Prince passed with flying colors. “For You” was released on April 7th 1978 after eight months and going over his budget by 114,000$ . For You received large positive reviews although most were just in awe that a 19 year old had the ability to arrange their debut album. While the acclaim for For You was great his second album “Prince” in

Such policy seems to be working with plagiarism at e.g. Universities, but in term of intellectual property the intangible aspect of the product makes it more difficult to control. Therefore stopping online piracy is easier said than done, as it would require enormous human resources from a government to track down illegal websites and taking a legal action against them leading to the closure. One case study worth following regarding this issue was on the major streaming website TV SHACK.net has been seized many times by the US government and it kept changing the domain addresses to overseas addresses as .co or .bz. The owner, 23 year old student Richard O’Dwyer from Sheffield has been charged with copyright infringement and the US Justice Department has been seeking to extradite him from the UK since May 2011 – BBC reports. Streaming itself is a grey area in many countries, i.e. Germany, where it is not perceived as downloading but has been sourced using illegal means. Compared with the legal issues and the fact that the content was stored on foreign servers the law enforcement was extremely difficult, but now it has been set an example worldwide of tackling with piracy. On entering the internet address now a video clip displays which in a humoristic educated people on what piracy is and how much a “free” movie really cost. Such attempt is one of the suggested ways in dealing with piracy through

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.